Jew (to). The earlier editions of "Webster's Dictionary" contained the verb "to jew," and defined it "to cheat," "to play with," etc. At the request of a number of influential Israelites the word was eliminated from the book. As a matter of fact, however, the word had no connection with or reference to the followers of the Mosaic faith. It was derived from the French jeu and jouir, which means "to play with", "to cheat," etc.; but its orthography had become corrupted to "jew." It did not appear in subsequent editions of the work.

Not having encountered this information before, and having as a child gotten in an inordinate amount of trouble for using the verb (after reading it in Mark Twain, and adopting its use without the reservations that might have accompanied a broader acquaintance with the term), I looked around to see if I could corroborate Clapin's account.

OED does not give the etymology as per Clapin, but rather foists the etymology of the verb onto the noun:

OED does, however, include jouir in the etymologies of some verbs, giving "to enjoy" as its meaning. 'Joy' (hence 'enjoy') is among the more obscure, and obsolete, 'enjoyse' and 'jouise', along with the noun 'jouissance'.

I looked farther for corroboration of Clapin's etymology and a more detailed account of the controversy that rewrote Webster's Dictionary, without much success.

For the rest: this is a point of historical curiosity for me, nothing more. The verb 'to jew', whether or not it should be (whatever should be means, if anything, in this context), is considered offensive, and its use is pejorative.

In this context, however, it is worthwhile to point out that, at least in contemporary mythos, driving a hard bargain, even to the point of cheating those on the losing end of the bargain, was regarded with, if not approval, at least not wholehearted disapproval. As now portrayed in literature and historical accounts, the Yankee bargainer was notoriously elevated in the public estimation for precisely the behavior said to be condemned by pejorative use of the verb 'to jew'. That ambivalent attitude continues to this day, and is presently represented by the tacit public approval of prominent public figures in the US, whose chief claim to prominence rests on their having successfully cheated many elderly or otherwise vulnerable people through the enterprising practice of what is fondly if falsely proclaimed as the "art of the deal".

In sum, my question is whether Clapin's account of the verb 'jew' is accurate. That one question might be broken down into these component questions:

Is Clapin's derivation of 'to jew' from jeu and jouir correct?

Was it "at the request of a number of influential Israelites" that the verb was "eliminated from" later editions of Webster's Dictionary and, if so, who were those "influential Israelites"?

Does Bernard Madoff figure prominently among those "elevated" by cheating others? There is a joy in a bargain where both sides win something. There is joy in thievery for the thief but for few others.
– anongoodnurseAug 23 '17 at 3:46

@anongoodnurse, Robin Hood? I avoided examples (sort of), because there are so many, and because it's the ambivalent attitude toward the individuals and their behavior that's on point. In regards to Yankee traders (then and now), as long as it was a Yankee behaving that way, it was fine or at least acceptable; anybody else, not so good.
– JELAug 23 '17 at 5:02

Some of the correspondence between Solomons and the dictionary was in fact published in The Chicago Tribune in 1872.

WASHINGTON, D.C., Jan 15 1872,

Messrs. G. & C. Merriam, Springfield, Mass.:

GENTS: Feeling assured that your liberality of sentiment will not knowingly permit you to do violence to the religious feelings of any of your fellow citizens by assisting to perpetuate the bigotry of the past dark age, which happily finds no resting place in our country, permit me, a Jew, to respectfully call your attention to the intolerant definition of a word which appears in the latest and all previous editions of "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary," of which you are the publishers:

I allude to the word,

"JEW," v. a. To cheat or defraud; to swindle. [Colloq.]

I would do injustice to your intelligence to offer any arguments in support of the exceptions I take to the constructions of the word in the sense given, and therefore respectfully submit that in subsequent editions you omit the objectionable definitions from your standard and deservedly popular dictionary.

Asking the favor of a reply, I am, yours truly,

A. S. Solomons.

The reply was published as well:

Hon. A. S. Solomons:

Dear Sir: We have your favor of the 15th instant, and are obliged by its frank statement of the difficulties in regard to the objectionable word. It is one of those cases where a word is used in an opprobrious sense without necessarily any offensive sense attending the original word. Thus, "Jesuitical" is used popularly to indicate a kind of artfulness and cunning. If this Dictionary in defining it, adds "used opprobriously," it is understood no offensive sense is understood, or should be appropriated to the class, sect, race or nation, from whom the word is derived.

We have ordered these words attached to the word you mention. Does that meet your wish, or what would you suggest?

The word is found in Worcester, and we believe in other Dictionaries.

We are always anxious no injustice should be done to any in our Dictionary, which has been ever impartial.

The Tribune describes these as the first letters on the subject, and writes in a footnote that there was further correspondence indicating that "the publishers of Webster's and of Worcester's Dictionaries agree to remedy the outrage on good taste and justice which the retention of such a word with such a meaning offered to a great people. In future numbers the definition will be excluded."

According to The Missouri Granger in 1874, the word was stricken from the 1873 edition of Webster's, but reappeared in some prints of "the edition for the present year."

This prompted another appeal from Solomons, to which he received this explanation from the publishers, published in the Granger and confirming that Webster's was still resolved to remove the word:

Dear Sir: Yours of the 27th received. We are very glad you have noticed and called attention to the matter you have mentioned. When the present edition of Webster's was stereotyped we had two plates cast. We have printed from one set until last spring, making in that set from time to time such corrections as seemed needful. A record of such corrections was kept by our editor. Last spring we commenced printing from the second set, instructing our editor and electro-typer to have the corrections made in the second set that had been made in the first, and until we received your letter we supposed they had all been made before printing from them. We infer from that failure in the instance you mention occurred by a failure to put on record that correction when it was made. We now send your letter to our editor, with direction to have the correction made at once, which we trust will be satisfactory. We will see that the correction is duly made.

As for Clapin's assertion that the verb derived from French and not from the noun form of Jew, I can't find any corroborating evidence and suspect that the assertion is wrong, although proving the negative is hard to do conclusively.

One argument I would make in favor of the noun-to-verb etymology would be observing that attestations of "Jew" as a pejorative adjective extend back further than the use as a verb, and looking through these uses could show how precursors to the verb use evolved.
OED's earliest attestation of the verb is from 1825, with a capital 'J.'

We hope, for the honour and character of the state, that neither the legislature nor the people, will Jew the items of expence.

This seems like a convincing explanation of the verb and seems to be the one implied by OED in linking the verb sense to the noun sense. I see it as an argument against Clapin's claim only insofar as it would take significant evidence to the contrary to suggest that the derogatory verb form didn't derive this way, and that evidence remains elusive.

This is an outstanding answer. A significant amount of effort went into the productive research. I will award this answer an additional 300 bounty on its supplemental merits, when I can without putting the bounty at risk of dilution or deletion.
– JELAug 26 '17 at 7:19

so don't try to Jew us down twenty five cents when we need every cent to get up a good paper for you

that the word was understood as referring to Jewish people.

According to the 5 September 1874 Appletons' Journal (quoting the Tribune) the verb was removed from Webster's dictionary at the request of Mr. Solomons, "a very respectable Hebrew bookseller in Washington".

I'm not understanding how 'juiver' relates to either 'jouir' or 'jeu', and so not understanding how 'juiver' sponsored or otherwise plays into Clapin's derivation of the English verb 'jew' from 'jouir' and 'jeu'. Clapin's claim was that orthographic corruption of 'jouir' or 'jeu' (it's not clear which, or if he means both) resulted in English 'to jew'. Yours are both very helpful observations. Given that another excellent answer credits yours as identifying the "influential Isrealites" (one of them, anyhow), I'm going to award you the inital bounty prematurely--due to circumstances.
– JELAug 26 '17 at 7:11

@JEL my point is that even in French in 1889, rather than "Jeu" or "Jouir" the word "Juiver" (which refers to Jewish people) was use for unfair bargaining. See especially footnote 25 on page 287 here: books.google.com/… which cites 1835 and 1836 French dictionaries as explaining the bargaining meaning of "juiver" and relationship to Jews.
– DavePhDAug 29 '17 at 12:46

I would not have thought there was any justification whatever for proposing that the verb "to Jew" derives from the French "jeu" or "jouir".

Anyone who wanted to disguise the fact that sharp business practices were once attributed to Jewish people would need to ban Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" from the stage together with much other literature.

Burning martyrs at the stake was evil, but no one seeks to cover up that it happened. Why would it be necessary to disguise the anti-social mores of the past (such as anti-Semitism)?

I think "foists the etymology of the verb on the noun" is a reference to OED's etymology listed under the verb: Etymology: < Jew n. (sense 2). This conflicts with the Clapin derivation, hence the question.
– RaceYouAnytimeAug 23 '17 at 13:20

@RaceYouAnytime In that case shouldn't he have said "foists the etymology of the noun (sense 1) on the verb". The OED does not provide any etymology for sense 2 of the noun.
– WS2Aug 23 '17 at 15:39

1

@RaceYouAnytime The Clapin etymology seems quite preposterous to me, nothing short of an attempt to re-write history. I note that no supporting references are given to the entry in the 1902 New Dictionary of Americanisms.
– WS2Aug 23 '17 at 15:53

That's an interesting question (regarding "foists"). Based on the context provided in the question it seems to me that the point is to contrast OED's etymological link between the verb and noun with Clapin's claim that "the word had no connection with or reference to the followers of the Mosaic faith." (By the way, it was not me who downvoted, my intent was only to clarify.)
– RaceYouAnytimeAug 23 '17 at 15:58

I suppose 'foists' could go either way, depending on perspective, @RaceYouAnytime and WS2. From my perspective, what was being palmed (what I couldn't see immediately) was the etymology of the verb. Be that as it may, you seem to be suggesting Clapin made the account RE the verb up out of whole cloth? Not only the etymology, but the disappearance from Webster's?
– JELAug 23 '17 at 16:57